Habeas Corpus

18,782 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Payne v. Smith
  667 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-24 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence, combined with other trial circumstances, deprived the petitioner of a constitutionally fair trial.
• Brady v. Unwar J. Samaha
  667 F.2d 224· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge failed to exercise scrupulous discretion in declaring a mistrial, thus violating the defendants' double jeopardy rights.
• Brown v. Harris
  666 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim regarding jury selection was without merit, and the admission of voice identification testimony did not violate due process, nor was it reversible error.
• Zeigler v. Callahan
  659 F.2d 254· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the Commonwealth's alleged non-disclosure of the full scope of its agreement with a key witness, nor by the failure to correct allegedly false testimony.
• Bailey v. Redman
  657 F.2d 21· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant must demonstrate an actual deprivation of the right to consult counsel, not just potential prejudice, to succeed on a Sixth Amendment claim based on a trial court's instruction.
• Barksdale v. Blackburn
  647 F.2d 630· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an untimely notice of appeal cannot be considered unless a motion for relief from the delay is filed within the time prescribed by the rules.
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  646 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The majority opinion holds that the Wainwright v. Sykes rule is not implicated by the defendant's jury instruction claim, and that even if it were, the defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice requirements. The dissent disagrees with both holdings.
• Burton v. Bergman
  649 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in granting habeas relief based on a single word in jury instructions, as the instructions as a whole were not prejudicial and the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.
• Parkhurst v. State OF Wyo.
  641 F.2d 775· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims for release or injunctive relief are cognizable only in habeas corpus and require exhaustion of state remedies, but a claim for money damages under § 1983 may proceed if it does not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Archer v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York & the Attorney Gen. of the State of N.Y.
  646 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit to the claims of outrageous prosecutorial conduct, double jeopardy, or denial of speedy trial.
• Ogle v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the suppression of FBI reports did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the evidence was not material, and the participation of judges who did not hear oral argument did not violate the right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Johnson v. Hopper
  639 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to appoint separate counsel for co-defendants, when an actual conflict of interest arose during trial, violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Grimes
  641 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-02 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate, holding that while the double jeopardy issue was troubling, the district court did not err in its disposition of the appellant's claims.
• Robinson v. Wyrick
  635 F.2d 757· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant denied the right to a direct appeal due to counsel's deficient brief is entitled to habeas corpus relief without a showing of prejudice.
• Jones v. Estelle
  632 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an improper jury verdict due to a change in foreman lacked sufficient substance for habeas relief.
• Paullet v. Howard
  634 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust available state judicial remedies for his claims, thus the district court's denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is affirmed.
• Plant v. Wyrick
  636 F.2d 188· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his trial attorney's actions or omissions.
• In re the Petition of Josette Geisser v. United States
  627 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's extensive diplomatic efforts to prevent extradition, despite the Swiss government's adamant refusal, constituted fulfillment of its "best efforts" promise under the plea bargain, thus no constitutional rights were violated.
• Rodgers v. Wyrick
  621 F.2d 921· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prisoner must exhaust state remedies by filing a motion to recall the mandate before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, as his prior convictions were used to enhance his current sentence.
• Scurr v. Niccum
  620 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prosecution's suppression of exculpatory evidence, specifically regarding an alternative suspect and impeachment material for the state's key witness, violated the defendant's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and United States v. Agurs.
• Johnson v. Mabry
  602 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the original sentence imposed consecutive terms, and that the subsequent commitment order merely corrected a clerical error, thus the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Keiko Asai v. Leonel J. Castillo
  593 F.2d 1222· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to reopen deportation proceedings, and denied motions for costs and attorney's fees.
• Pierce v. Cardwell
  572 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-04 ·cited 22×
  A habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the state court did not resolve disputed factual issues relevant to constitutional claims, especially when the waiver of rights is complex and the state court's application of legal standards is unclear.
• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  570 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petition stated a legally sufficient claim under Miranda if the petitioner had indeed requested an attorney.
• Satterfield v. Zahradnick
  572 F.2d 443· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-23 ·cited 22×
  The prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify did not invalidate the conviction because the trial judge disregarded it.
• Meloon v. Helgemoe
  564 F.2d 602· 1st Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 22×
  New Hampshire's gender-based statutory rape law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because the classification is not substantially related to important governmental objectives.
• White v. Maggio
  556 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of access to critical evidence, if subject to varying expert opinion, violates due process and requires a new trial, and that the retroactivity of this rule favors application in this case.
• Foster v. State
  348 So. 2d 410· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-07-27 ·cited 22×
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• Mucie v. Mo. State Dep't OF Corr.
  543 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that further exhaustion of state remedies was unnecessary due to state delay and the petitioner's lack of standing in state court.
• Roberts v. Collins
  544 F.2d 168· 4th Cir.· 1976-10-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that imposing a sentence for simple assault that exceeds the statutory maximum for assault with intent to murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• Franklyn Peroff v. Hylton
  542 F.2d 1247· 4th Cir.· 1976-10-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to prevent extradition was proper, as the requirements for extradition were met and no bars existed.
• Maynard Allen Jacobson v. United States
  542 F.2d 725· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a petitioner is not entitled to resentencing under Kortness if the parole guidelines pre-dated the sentence and did not change its import, and due process claims regarding parole execution are cognizable only in habeas corpus under § 2241.
• United States ex rel. Birchel Leonard Carson v. Taylor
  540 F.2d 1156· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the parolee's due process rights were violated by the failure to provide written notice of all claimed violations and by the reliance on undisclosed documentary evidence.
• Allen v. Aytch
  535 F.2d 817· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it would not reach the constitutional question of whether opening a prisoner's mail violated his rights, but instead would remand the case to consider non-constitutional grounds based on a contract and prison handbook.
• Lewis v. D. C. Dep't of Corr.
  533 F.2d 710· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The district court erred in dismissing pro se petitions for lack of jurisdiction, as the allegations were sufficient to state a colorable claim for constitutional tort.
• Dawson v. Cowan
  531 F.2d 1374· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to provide a limiting instruction regarding prior convictions used for habitual offender status, when those convictions were presented to the jury for the principal charge, constitutes a due process violation entitling the appellant to habeas corpu
• Carter v. Hardy
  526 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a federal court cannot order the expungement of state convictions that have fully served their sentences and are not used for sentence enhancement.
• United States ex rel. Francisco Martinez v. Warden James A. Thomas
  526 F.2d 750· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent due to his mental condition and the circumstances surrounding the denial of his adjournment requests, thus violating his due process rights.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Selikoff v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York
  524 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a trial judge's statements regarding sentencing, made before a pre-sentence report, do not constitute an unconditional promise that must be specifically enforced, and the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea is a sufficient remedy.
• Robert (Bobby) Smith v. Bounds
  538 F.2d 541· 4th Cir.· 1975-09-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the state must provide adequate legal research facilities or an acceptable alternative for inmates, but is not constitutionally required to provide both facilities and independent legal counsel.
• Malone v. State OF Ala.
  514 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a retained counsel's failure to inform a client of their right to appeal in forma pauperis, without notice to the court of the client's indigency, does not constitute state action denying constitutional rights.
• Truman v. Louie L. Wainwright
  514 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the state trial court's limitations on defense cross-examination and refusal to allow a witness to be called out of order did not violate federal constitutional standards, thus denying a writ of habeas corpus was proper.
• King v. Wyrick
  516 F.2d 321· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that denying jail time credit to an indigent prisoner on a murder sentence, when the sentencing judge explicitly stated no credit would be given, deprives the prisoner of equal protection under the law.
• Souder v. McGUIRE
  516 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a state prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis and in failing to appoint counsel, as the prisoner's limited funds did not preclude him from qualifying.
• Captain Roger G. Sanger v. Honorable Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
  507 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Air Force's denial of a conscientious objector discharge application must be supported by a record that includes the reasons for the adverse decision, especially the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board.
• Wilkins v. Erickson
  505 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-06 ·cited 22×
  Boykin v. Alabama does not require a state court judge to specifically articulate the three federal constitutional rights waived by a guilty plea; a reviewing court can find a plea voluntary and intelligent from the entire record, including a post-conviction evidentiary hearing.
• Bustamante v. Harold J. Cardwell [Frank A. Eyman]
  497 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's absence from the courtroom during the replaying of jury instructions, while an error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Singleton v. Estelle
  492 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that some claims were unexhausted and the jury discrimination claim failed to establish a prima facie case.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Leeson v. Damon
  496 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that erroneous advice from counsel regarding sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience.